JK has a piece on UN/US involvement in Libya in today's WSJ

[Luftmensch067]

I've been at a loss as to how to share it because they make you pay to read more than the beginning. I was able to get the whole text via a paid library subscription and would be happy to send it to anyone, just PM me.

Probably the best way to share it here would be to pick out a small selection of quotes, though you really need to read the whole thing to get it in context:

Libya and The Just Use Of American Force
John Kerry. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Mar 26, 2011. pg. A.15

Make no mistake, neither the U.N. nor any nation should be drawn into military intervention lightly. But there were legitimate reasons for establishing a no-fly zone over Libya and forcing Gadhafi to keep his most potent weapons out of the fight. If you slice through the fog of misinformation and weigh the risks and benefits alongside our values and interests, the justification is clear and compelling.

What is happening in the Middle East could be the most important geostrategic shift since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Absent U.N./NATO resolve, the promise that the pro-democracy movement holds for transforming the Arab world could have been crushed.

<snip>

The military intervention in Libya sends a critical signal to other leaders in the region: They cannot automatically assume they can resort to large-scale violence to put down legitimate demands for reform without consequences. U.N. resolve in Libya can have an impact on future calculations.

<snip>

Every potential conflict is unique, and there is no simple formula for when to weigh in with force. It is fair to ask, why Libya and not other humanitarian situations? The truth is that we must weigh our ideals, our interests and our capabilities in each case when deciding where to become involved.

[wisteria]

1. Thank you for posting this. I am going to PM you to get the entire op-ed.

In this small segment, he has answered two questions I had.

[MBS]

2. oped text is posted on Sen. Kerry's facebook page

http://www.facebook.com/notes/john-kerry/wall-street-journal-op-ed-libya-and-the-just-use-of-american-force/10150179330005879

[Luftmensch067]

3. Oh, good!

Thanks for letting us know!!!

[ladym55]

4. Now that I've read the full text

I do feel better about the decision. It has all been very confusing to me, especially when I'm hearing that our only option is to open a THIRD theater of military operations (we'll definitely need troops on the ground). Others have said that we are ignoring Bahrain and Syria. And then there is the issue of cost. Americans across the country are losing income and benefits through massive domestic program cuts, but the cost of military action is not questioned.

Thing is we need clear, constructive dialog on these decisions. I know why constructive dialog isn't happening, but I will continue to advocate for it.

[Luftmensch067]

5. I wish the arguments JK makes here were being spoken of more widely

It seems to me that he is taking a long view of what may be evolving in the entire region and what our place in it may and should be. Most of what I'm hearing in the MSM is jokes about Obama as a Nobel Peace Prize winner having gotten us into another war. I think that's simplistic and inaccurate. I will be very interested to hear what the President has to say tomorrow night.

[ladym55]

6. Too much of our discussion is simplistic

And that applies to a wide range of issues. The challenges that face us are complicated, both foreign and domestic. We keep seeking easy answers that can be quoted in a 15-second sound byte.

I think that is why I am SO frustrated with the MSM. Why is it that every time my husband turns on the Today Show, I'm hearing from John McCain or Newt Gingrich? Why aren't we hearing more from JK? I keep referring people to the speech JK gave the week after the Tucson shooting, where JK laid out just how large our nation's challenges are and how we need to get our act together as a nation and get going. NO ONE ever HEARD of that speech. And why don't we ask JK more often about international issues ... he's only chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee!! I mean, really. Why ask someone with experience and expertise when Newt Gingrich is available?

[Luftmensch067]

7. Right on, sister! n/t

[karynnj]

9. It may be because of what happens when they do let JK on as one of the Democratic voices

I have never seen JK and any Republican end up as a Republican win - and it often - even on Fox - ended up a clear Democratic win. You would think the Republican counterpart to JK is McCain, who is everywhere. But there is a major difference, the Democrats have the Presidency. I wonder if that could be that the media is balancing the Obama administrations with Republicans. (Note that Schumer has always tried to get media is rarely there either - same with Durbin and Reid.)

It might also be that the real target of JK speeches is his fellow legislators, the administration and the beltway pundits. It might be the media/voting public see the government as an administration versus its opposition as the story - and getting power being the "game" to follow, where serious policy, vision and goals are something to relegate to (the now almost non-existent)serious news.

Now it could also be that JK himself is on the amount of time that he wants. If so, it may be a balance between working and being available for the comments. I don't think that he has been seen at all since the talk show he did a few Sundays ago. It could be that he is still quietly in the Middle East - or it could be that he is taking a well deserved week of vacation.

As to Gingrich, in fairness more time is also given to any potentially viable Presidential possibility. But, I do think the cable stations have given far more time to Gingrich and Palin - than they did to Kerry in 2006 before he opted not to run. The wonderful Fanueil Hall speeches got nowhere the coverage of the former half term governor's fund raiser soon after the 2010 elections.

So, I do think there is an overall bias to the Republicans, but I also think it possible at this point that JK did not - for whatever reasons - make himself available in the last week. (op-eds and statements canbe done from anywhere) It could even be that with Obama and Clinton now taking almost exactly the position that JK spoke of nearly 4 weeks ago, that the media would be pushing the question of whether they were slow. At a point where things are clearer, JK is well positioned to blow that away - as Obama/the world was getting the support that JK spoke of wanting - and they acted on the verge of the point JK said he would engage - to stop a catastrophe.

It could be that to JK, having had the position that Obama ultimately went to on Egypt and than Libya, being a successful last resort diplomat in some areas where the administration had problems, and having several key domestic agenda pieces as his efforts, he is comfortable being lower profile on a national level. He knows he is powerful and influential.

[wisteria]

11. Yes, I don't think he minds being low profile. He doesn't have to prove himself to anyone.

He is all about serving this country.

[wisteria]

10. You are so right! n/t

[Inuca]

8. Very good and,

by chance or design, very much in synch with what Obama said last night. Thanks MBS for the link to the whole text.

Another short quote that I find very relevant: " The vast majority of the protesters in these countries are crying out for the opportunity to live a decent life, get a real job, and provide for a family. Abandoning them would have betrayed not only the people seeking democratic freedoms but the core values of the U.S. and other democratic nations. It would have reinforced the all-too-common misperception on the Arab street that America says one thing and does another."

[Mass]

12. Frankly, I wonder what he thinks of that.

I would imagine that, if she had gone too far, the WH would already have answered.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/clinton-tells-house-obama-would-ignore-war-resolutions.php?ref=fpblg

Clinton To Congress: Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions
Update: Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), who asked Clinton about the War Powers Act during a classified briefing, said Clinton and the administration are sidestepping the measure's provisions giving Congress the ability to put a 60-day time limit on any military action.

"They are not committed to following the important part of the War Powers Act," he told TPM in a phone interview. "She said they are certainly willing to send reports and if they issue a press release, they'll send that to us too."

Clinton was responding to a question from Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) about the administration's response to any effort by Congress to exercise its war powers, according to a senior Republican lawmaker who attended the briefing.
The answer surprised many in the room because Clinton plainly admitted the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama's power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions. In doing so, he would follow a long line of Presidents who have ignored the act since its passage, deeming it an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power.

[karynnj]

13. Ok - she went far too far here

I hope that Kerry does not agree. I doubt he does from the things said in the War powers act hearing.

I think that the Obama administration is over reaching and putting Congressional Democrats in a very awkward position.

edited to note that there is no direct quote here and it is one Congressman speaking of what was said in a classified hearing. I have no idea how accurate Sherman usually is - and I agree with your comment that Obama (or Clinton) should correct this if it is inaccurate. (Or this may be me trying to find a way to believe that it is not true.)

[beachmom]

14. Note this:

Remember, the pleas for help came not just from the Libyan rebels, but from the Arab League and the Gulf states.

So who is in the Arab League?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Arab_League

Oh, wait -- there is Sudan. The perpetrator of the genocide in Darfur. We hung our rush to war on that list of tyrants and despots?